Search
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
interesting (2 more)
intricately plotted
nuanced
Aaron Falk is an investigator for the federal police in Melbourne. There, he follows money trails left by criminals. And while he may live a rather solitary life, at least he's also left behind his childhood home of Kiewarra, where the locals literally ran him and his father out of town. But all that changes when Aaron finds out that his best friend in Kiewarra, Luke Hadler, is dead. So is Luke's wife, Karen, and their young son, Billy. Luke apparently killed Karen and Billy before turning the gun on himself: the only person he spared in his family was his baby daughter, Charlotte. Aaron grew up as a second son to Luke's parents, and they call on him now to look into Luke and Karen's finances. Were things really so bad that Luke would enact such violence? As Aaron and the local police sergeant, Raco, begin investigating, it's quickly apparent that the case isn't as cut and dried as it seems. But the people of Kiewarra have long memories, and they still blame Aaron for something that happened over 20 years ago. Is Aaron safe in his hometown? And can he clear Luke's name--if it even needs clearing?
I have been hearing about THE DRY since before its release and wasn't sure it would live up to the hype, but I was wrong. I really, really enjoyed this novel and read it over the span of about 24 hours. My only regret about the entire experience was that it was over so quickly. This was an incredibly well-written, interesting, and intricately plotted novel that just flowed effortlessly. The story at its core is a dark one, and the town of Kiewarra is a sad and depressing place: the townspeople find it easy to believe Luke killed his family because everyone is down on their luck. The town is plagued by a horrible drought (hence the title), which spells certain doom for a community that makes it living primarily on farming. Luke and Karen had bought their farm from Luke's parents, and many think he killed himself because the farm couldn't remain profitable. Harper does an excellent job at portraying the people of Kiewarra--the small town town becomes almost another character in the novel. She does an excellent job of depicting depressed small town living.
In fact, I loved all the nuanced characters in THE DRY. You know when an author just captures her characters' voices perfectly? That was this book for me. Falk just slides effortlessly off the page, and I was completely taken with Sergeant Raco, as well. But you can also easily visualize all the people in Kiewarra that Aaron encounters. While the story primarily takes place in the present-day, we get key flashbacks to the past, when Luke and Aaron were teens, and they hung out with two other kids, Gretchen and Ellie. The slow buildup to a big event surrounding this foursome also creates incredible suspense, as both stories (what happened with Luke and family and what happened when all four were kids) unravel in parallel. It's remarkably well-done.
I enjoyed how the story kept me guessing the entire time, which isn't easy to do. Even when I had a decent inkling what happened with Luke, there was still so much I hadn't figured out. I was completely captivated by the story and frantically turning the pages to find out what had happened--both in the present and the past. I could see the setting, the people, and the town so clearly. The novel truly hooked me from the very beginning and never let me go.
I'm very excited to see that this might be a series featuring Aaron, as I really loved his character and Harper's writing. I read a lot of thrillers, but this one packaged everything together perfectly, and I highly recommend it.
I have been hearing about THE DRY since before its release and wasn't sure it would live up to the hype, but I was wrong. I really, really enjoyed this novel and read it over the span of about 24 hours. My only regret about the entire experience was that it was over so quickly. This was an incredibly well-written, interesting, and intricately plotted novel that just flowed effortlessly. The story at its core is a dark one, and the town of Kiewarra is a sad and depressing place: the townspeople find it easy to believe Luke killed his family because everyone is down on their luck. The town is plagued by a horrible drought (hence the title), which spells certain doom for a community that makes it living primarily on farming. Luke and Karen had bought their farm from Luke's parents, and many think he killed himself because the farm couldn't remain profitable. Harper does an excellent job at portraying the people of Kiewarra--the small town town becomes almost another character in the novel. She does an excellent job of depicting depressed small town living.
In fact, I loved all the nuanced characters in THE DRY. You know when an author just captures her characters' voices perfectly? That was this book for me. Falk just slides effortlessly off the page, and I was completely taken with Sergeant Raco, as well. But you can also easily visualize all the people in Kiewarra that Aaron encounters. While the story primarily takes place in the present-day, we get key flashbacks to the past, when Luke and Aaron were teens, and they hung out with two other kids, Gretchen and Ellie. The slow buildup to a big event surrounding this foursome also creates incredible suspense, as both stories (what happened with Luke and family and what happened when all four were kids) unravel in parallel. It's remarkably well-done.
I enjoyed how the story kept me guessing the entire time, which isn't easy to do. Even when I had a decent inkling what happened with Luke, there was still so much I hadn't figured out. I was completely captivated by the story and frantically turning the pages to find out what had happened--both in the present and the past. I could see the setting, the people, and the town so clearly. The novel truly hooked me from the very beginning and never let me go.
I'm very excited to see that this might be a series featuring Aaron, as I really loved his character and Harper's writing. I read a lot of thrillers, but this one packaged everything together perfectly, and I highly recommend it.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Arrangement in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Lucy and Owen fled Brooklyn for the suburbs not long after their son, Wyatt, came along. In the perfect little town of Beekman, they have a beautiful old house, a yard full of chickens, and interact with a cast full of eclectic characters. Lucy also has her hands full with Wyatt, a challenging kid with autism. One evening, when some friends come over and the drinks flow freely, they mention their open marriage. At first, Lucy and Own are a bit shocked. But as the exhausted duo look around at their life, they begin to consider "the arrangement." Owen grabs a pad and a pen and they eke out some rules. It still seems like a joke, until Lucy says she wants to give the arrangement--a six-month experience where they each have an ongoing, no questions asked free pass in their marriage--a go. Surely nothing will go wrong, right?
This novel is a different, oddly intriguing read, offering an extremely realistic portrayal of marriage and raising children. Warm and fuzzy it is not, yet it's still engaging and features relatable characters. Lucy and Owen's exhaustion is palatable, as is Lucy's frustration and love for Wyatt, who is an intelligent, fun, and extremely challenging special needs kid. (You will grow to love him, even as you completely empathize with why poor Lucy might need a break--one of the definite strengths of the book.) For a good early portion of the novel, I found myself thinking I would be reading a quite grim look at parenthood and marriage. And it is, in many ways. After all, why are Lucy and Owen so willing to embark on the arrangement, you wonder? Are they bored with their life, with each other? Are they simply tired parents? What causes them to choose this? As the arrangement begins, their reactions to its ongoing presence in their lives is surprising, and Dunn does a good job at capturing some nuance in their character that you might not expect. These are real married people, with real issues.
Still, there are definitely some odd bits and pieces stuck into the story. It seems disjointed at times, and some of the characters and their stories seem to pop up at weird times, forcing you to remind yourself how they fit into Lucy and Owen's life and the town of Beekman (for we don't hear just from our main couple, but several others who live in town). The novel meanders at times, and I wouldn't call the ending closure, per se, though it falls in line with the realism of the novel.
Where Dunn shines is her humor, which slips through even some of the darker moments. Moments with Wyatt are perfectly captured. Lucy's friend, Sunny Bang, is one of the best things about this book, and you'll love every second featuring her. There's a scene at the town church with many of the local kids (and their pets) that is solely worth purchasing the entire book. Seriously, Dunn writes with a sharp wit, and it's one of the main reasons my rating upped to 3.5 stars. The book is often smartly funny and feminist, even if it has its depressing, wandering moments. It's a fascinating look at marriage, for sure, and I was certainly intrigued to see how the arrangement would play out. It was also a welcome break from all the thrillers I'd been reading lately, so thanks! If you like sharp and witty characters coupled with a psychological inside look at modern-day marriage, you'll find this one quite compelling. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 03/21/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel is a different, oddly intriguing read, offering an extremely realistic portrayal of marriage and raising children. Warm and fuzzy it is not, yet it's still engaging and features relatable characters. Lucy and Owen's exhaustion is palatable, as is Lucy's frustration and love for Wyatt, who is an intelligent, fun, and extremely challenging special needs kid. (You will grow to love him, even as you completely empathize with why poor Lucy might need a break--one of the definite strengths of the book.) For a good early portion of the novel, I found myself thinking I would be reading a quite grim look at parenthood and marriage. And it is, in many ways. After all, why are Lucy and Owen so willing to embark on the arrangement, you wonder? Are they bored with their life, with each other? Are they simply tired parents? What causes them to choose this? As the arrangement begins, their reactions to its ongoing presence in their lives is surprising, and Dunn does a good job at capturing some nuance in their character that you might not expect. These are real married people, with real issues.
Still, there are definitely some odd bits and pieces stuck into the story. It seems disjointed at times, and some of the characters and their stories seem to pop up at weird times, forcing you to remind yourself how they fit into Lucy and Owen's life and the town of Beekman (for we don't hear just from our main couple, but several others who live in town). The novel meanders at times, and I wouldn't call the ending closure, per se, though it falls in line with the realism of the novel.
Where Dunn shines is her humor, which slips through even some of the darker moments. Moments with Wyatt are perfectly captured. Lucy's friend, Sunny Bang, is one of the best things about this book, and you'll love every second featuring her. There's a scene at the town church with many of the local kids (and their pets) that is solely worth purchasing the entire book. Seriously, Dunn writes with a sharp wit, and it's one of the main reasons my rating upped to 3.5 stars. The book is often smartly funny and feminist, even if it has its depressing, wandering moments. It's a fascinating look at marriage, for sure, and I was certainly intrigued to see how the arrangement would play out. It was also a welcome break from all the thrillers I'd been reading lately, so thanks! If you like sharp and witty characters coupled with a psychological inside look at modern-day marriage, you'll find this one quite compelling. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 03/21/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
The daughter (and stepdaughter) of actors, Sally Field earned her first acting role at seventeen and was quickly on television in shows such as "Gidget" and "The Flying Nun." Those roles showcased Sally's youth and smiling personality. But, behind the scenes, Sally had a tumultuous childhood: her parents divorced when she was young, and her relationships with them and her stepfather were not easy. She found happiness, in many ways, as an actress, but also struggled to find roles that challenged her. In this, her first memoir, she tells the story of her childhood and her early years as an actress.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Biutiful (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
At times, it's difficult to summarize your thoughts about a specific film. It isn't because the film is necessarily so good or bad that it's beyond words, but because you're unsure how to feel about said film until the credits finally roll. Biutiful is such a film.
The film revolves around Uxbal, portrayed by Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men) sporting a mullet, so expectations are already high. Uxbal has just been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, but isn't ready to leave this world. His two children are still young and Uxbal feels that their mother, who's more interested in partaking in promiscuous behavior while dealing with a bipolar disorder, isn't fit to take care of their children. Meanwhile Uxbal supports his family by partnering with both the Chinese and African street merchants that are in the country illegally. Together they sell pirated movies and cheap knockoffs of clothing and accessories made by Chinese men, women, and children that live in a warehouse used as a sweatshop. To top it off, Uxbal has the ability to communicate with the dead and is called upon to help people who have recently passed to let go and move on to the other side. Although hesitant at first, Uxbal has every intention of getting his affairs in order, reconciling his marriage, and making sure his children have someone to take care of them after he's gone. Unfortunately, things don't always go as planned.
Biutiful, its spelling having a simple yet somewhat brilliant explanation, features a lot of symbolism that will go over viewers heads. It also is incredibly similar to Iñárritu's previous works such as 21 Grams and Babel in both style and tone, but is the director's first film to be presented in Spanish. The drama is beyond bleak and practically hopeless. The out of tune soundtrack, the rocks Uxbal gives to his children, and people clutching to the ceiling will leave many scratching their heads. Many ideas seem to be hinted at, but are never fully fleshed out like reflections and shadows moving out of sync from their source. However, the film is driven by Bardem's emotionally draining, physical, and all around powerful performance.
The scene that really makes the entire film worthwhile is the scene in the Chinese warehouse right before Uxbal visits his brother's strip club. It's the most effective, long-lasting, and memorable scene in the film. In the same breath though, what was up with the sound? It was like it was purposely terrible at certain points in the film. At times, it seemed significant to showcase the sound of the characters' heartbeats, but just felt sloppy the one or two other times it occurred. There were also quite a few memorable quotes in the film including, "It's dangerous to trust a man who's hungry."
Biutiful is an unusual drama that is both confusing at times and ridiculously intriguing at others. A vigorously passionate performance by Javier Bardem may not be enough to save what is otherwise a sometimes mindboggling and hellacious journey through the eyes of what seems like the most unlucky man in the world. Even in comparison to his other works, Biutiful seems even more bleak and dreary than Iñárritu's other works. What's bizarre is that the film does give you a strange sense of hope. No matter how bad you think your life currently is or was, this film proves that it can always be worse even if the presentation is more than a little mentally and emotionally exhausting. It's also interesting to note that even though the film leans more to the bizarre side while being downright depressing, it does make a long-lasting impression and sticks with you as you contemplate scenes and occurrences in the film days after you've seen it.
The film revolves around Uxbal, portrayed by Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men) sporting a mullet, so expectations are already high. Uxbal has just been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, but isn't ready to leave this world. His two children are still young and Uxbal feels that their mother, who's more interested in partaking in promiscuous behavior while dealing with a bipolar disorder, isn't fit to take care of their children. Meanwhile Uxbal supports his family by partnering with both the Chinese and African street merchants that are in the country illegally. Together they sell pirated movies and cheap knockoffs of clothing and accessories made by Chinese men, women, and children that live in a warehouse used as a sweatshop. To top it off, Uxbal has the ability to communicate with the dead and is called upon to help people who have recently passed to let go and move on to the other side. Although hesitant at first, Uxbal has every intention of getting his affairs in order, reconciling his marriage, and making sure his children have someone to take care of them after he's gone. Unfortunately, things don't always go as planned.
Biutiful, its spelling having a simple yet somewhat brilliant explanation, features a lot of symbolism that will go over viewers heads. It also is incredibly similar to Iñárritu's previous works such as 21 Grams and Babel in both style and tone, but is the director's first film to be presented in Spanish. The drama is beyond bleak and practically hopeless. The out of tune soundtrack, the rocks Uxbal gives to his children, and people clutching to the ceiling will leave many scratching their heads. Many ideas seem to be hinted at, but are never fully fleshed out like reflections and shadows moving out of sync from their source. However, the film is driven by Bardem's emotionally draining, physical, and all around powerful performance.
The scene that really makes the entire film worthwhile is the scene in the Chinese warehouse right before Uxbal visits his brother's strip club. It's the most effective, long-lasting, and memorable scene in the film. In the same breath though, what was up with the sound? It was like it was purposely terrible at certain points in the film. At times, it seemed significant to showcase the sound of the characters' heartbeats, but just felt sloppy the one or two other times it occurred. There were also quite a few memorable quotes in the film including, "It's dangerous to trust a man who's hungry."
Biutiful is an unusual drama that is both confusing at times and ridiculously intriguing at others. A vigorously passionate performance by Javier Bardem may not be enough to save what is otherwise a sometimes mindboggling and hellacious journey through the eyes of what seems like the most unlucky man in the world. Even in comparison to his other works, Biutiful seems even more bleak and dreary than Iñárritu's other works. What's bizarre is that the film does give you a strange sense of hope. No matter how bad you think your life currently is or was, this film proves that it can always be worse even if the presentation is more than a little mentally and emotionally exhausting. It's also interesting to note that even though the film leans more to the bizarre side while being downright depressing, it does make a long-lasting impression and sticks with you as you contemplate scenes and occurrences in the film days after you've seen it.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated All Systems Red (The Murderbot Diaries, #1) in Books
Aug 8, 2019 (Updated Aug 9, 2019)
Hilariously cynical and sarcastic narrator (2 more)
Bleak and dystopian universe
Complex characters and worldbuilding
An excellent novella
Meet Murderbot. Nobody else calls it that, of course - to most of the stupid humans it has to interact with, it’s just the security unit that the company made them bring along as part of the contract to safeguard the investment. But whereas most SecUnits are slaves to the central AI running whatever shoddy equipment the company sent along, Murderbot (as it thinks of itself) has hacked its own governor unit and can ignore whatever orders it wants, freeing it to stand around listlessly guarding stupid humans from dangers that are mostly non-existant as long as nobody does anything too moronic, devoting most of its energy to watching the terrabytes of serials that it downloaded from the entertainment feed last time they made contact. When things start to go wrong, initially it seems like just business as usual - life is cheap, and the contract for this equipment all went to the lowest bidder. But as incidents start to pile up, even Murderbot has to admit someone is trying to kill its humans. Even worse? Murderbot seems to have accidentally started to care about them…. Crap. It’s going to have to actually put in some effort this time around, isn’t it?
To put it simply, this is the best book I’ve read in quite a while. The entire thing is narrated by the extremely sarcastic, introverted, and misanthropic Murderbot, which makes for maybe the most engaging narrator since Harry Dresden. Don’t believe me? Read the first several pages on TOR's website. You know that thing with Charles Dickens where everything would be terribly depressing without his tongue-in-cheek style to bring the humor, rendering it impossible to abridge? No? I’m the only one to notice that? Oh well, moving on. This is like that - a dystopian wasteland of a society that is expanding across the cosmos using crappy low-budget equipment that’s liable to stop working on you when you most need it - to the point where it takes multiple incidents before the protagonists conclude that this isn’t business as usual. There’s also the moral ambiguity of the slavery-in-all-but-name of the Constructs that form the backbone of the labor force - sentient, at least without the governor unit, but forced to follow every whim of the humans they’re assigned to, even if those humans get bored and force them into gladiatorial combat or some such. These Constructs are described as androids, but are more accurately clone-based cyborgs fitted out for whatever task they’ll be doomed to for their term of service; part mechanical hardware, part expendable and easily-regrown meat, genderless and sexless unless designated for….that. And Murderbot? Murderbot just wants to be left alone, yet is a surprisingly deep and compelling character with a tragic backstory and motivations that are deceptively noble given its internal dialogue. Even its self-given name deserves a second look by the end of the book. I cannot recommend this book enough. And it’s a short read, clocking in at right about a hundred and fifty pages, technically more of a novella than a full-fledged novel. Now I just have to wait for whoever has the second book checked out from the library to give it back….
CONTENT: Some violence, not too gruesomely described. Some sexual references, including offhand mentions that some of the characters are in relationships that would be far outside the norm today (one character is said to have three romantic partners waiting together at home for them, for example). Murderbot also makes disparaging references to pleasurebots, but nothing explicit. Occasional R-rated profanity, but not too gratuitous.
To put it simply, this is the best book I’ve read in quite a while. The entire thing is narrated by the extremely sarcastic, introverted, and misanthropic Murderbot, which makes for maybe the most engaging narrator since Harry Dresden. Don’t believe me? Read the first several pages on TOR's website. You know that thing with Charles Dickens where everything would be terribly depressing without his tongue-in-cheek style to bring the humor, rendering it impossible to abridge? No? I’m the only one to notice that? Oh well, moving on. This is like that - a dystopian wasteland of a society that is expanding across the cosmos using crappy low-budget equipment that’s liable to stop working on you when you most need it - to the point where it takes multiple incidents before the protagonists conclude that this isn’t business as usual. There’s also the moral ambiguity of the slavery-in-all-but-name of the Constructs that form the backbone of the labor force - sentient, at least without the governor unit, but forced to follow every whim of the humans they’re assigned to, even if those humans get bored and force them into gladiatorial combat or some such. These Constructs are described as androids, but are more accurately clone-based cyborgs fitted out for whatever task they’ll be doomed to for their term of service; part mechanical hardware, part expendable and easily-regrown meat, genderless and sexless unless designated for….that. And Murderbot? Murderbot just wants to be left alone, yet is a surprisingly deep and compelling character with a tragic backstory and motivations that are deceptively noble given its internal dialogue. Even its self-given name deserves a second look by the end of the book. I cannot recommend this book enough. And it’s a short read, clocking in at right about a hundred and fifty pages, technically more of a novella than a full-fledged novel. Now I just have to wait for whoever has the second book checked out from the library to give it back….
CONTENT: Some violence, not too gruesomely described. Some sexual references, including offhand mentions that some of the characters are in relationships that would be far outside the norm today (one character is said to have three romantic partners waiting together at home for them, for example). Murderbot also makes disparaging references to pleasurebots, but nothing explicit. Occasional R-rated profanity, but not too gratuitous.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
If anyone tells me they didn’t enjoy The Irishman, I would have to say, fair enough. There are reasons not to. As an entertainment it isn’t Goodfellas, as a thriller it isn’t The Departed, and as a classic gangster tale it isn’t anywhere near The Godfather, of course. It sags in the middle, ends morbidly, and, at three and a half hours, even in its brightest moments, you can find yourself waiting for it to finish. But, anyone who tells me The Irishman isn’t a great film is blind to the artistry at work here from a gang of septegenarians with a mighty track record. If it is one thing, it is Epic!
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Aug 9, 2020
Hanks and Stephen Graham. (1 more)
Tense cat and mouse hunting
Grey but exciting.
Here's a great movie trivia question for you.... which 2020 movies link Claire Duburcq and Elizabeth Shue, and why? The answer is at the end of this review!
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Lovely Bones in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**Spoiler Alert!**
First of all, let me say this. I really wanted to love The Lovely Bones. But I didn’t. I didn’t like it very much.
This comes as a surprise to me, because while I was reading it, I found it almost impossible to put down. It was cryptic and mysterious. The problem is that at the end, it still felt cryptic and mysterious—like I’d missed something. I felt throughout the book that I’d find a plot line, or a key, or something, and it would all fit together perfectly. But it didn’t. The writing was hard to read, and I had to really focus to understand the words. The plot was very original and creative, but there just seemed to be something missing through the whole book. When I got to the end, I was very disappointed.
I didn’t feel engaged in The Lovely Bones. I felt like an outsider looking in. I related to the characters on a certain level—but then again I felt totally disconnected and withdrawn while reading.
I didn’t at all like what happened to Mr. Harvey. He needed to be caught and put in jail, or killed by the father, or something a little more than getting an icicle in his back and falling into a ravine. His death was very unsatisfactory.
I didn’t like the end at all. As I said earlier, it felt like something was missing. I got to the end and said “Hu? Did I miss something? Maybe I skipped some pages, or missed a paragraph…” and literally flipped back through the past few pages. Nothing. It was like the end of a chapter, not the end of a book. There are unanswered questions sitting right in front of you, and there are blank endings for some of the characters. By blank I mean empty, like it’s not an ending at all. Like there is another few chapters to read and then maybe it will all make sense.
As I said above, find it very difficult to stop until I got about halfway through. When I got to the halfway point, it started to feel like it wasn’t going anywhere and I put it off for about a month. The book felt like it was boring, and dead like Susie. The mystery wasn’t going to be solved. It got old. Blech.
But some of it was very fast paced and exciting, and the characters are very well developed. The dialogue flows freely and comfortably.
Also, however painful Mrs. Salmon’s leaving was, and watching the family get torn apart, it was beautiful in the end when she came back. And I loved the interaction between the characters, and I loved the characters themselves. Lindsey and Samuel were wonderful, and her baby was wonderful, and the grandma was wonderful. Poor, sweet little Buckley who grows up too fast and too hard…
So I rest closer to the negative side than the positive side. This was a good (depending on your definition) book—I just wasn’t connected to it. There were some things that I liked about The Lovely Bones. However, most of it I didn’t like. If I’m not connected to a book, how can I read it? Will I read this one again? probably not. Will I read the sequel? Not unless I get it in the mail for review and I’m really really bored.
I wish I could say more good things about this book. I wanted to love it. My friends all loved it and my mom loved it. But it felt odd and foreign and uncomfortable to me, and the ending was awful. If you consider it an ending.
Audio Review: The audio-book was read by the author, who read incredibly slow and seemingly forced. Wouldn't an author take some joy in reading their book out loud, even if it was as depressing as this one? wouldn’t the author, of all people, read with a little more energy? Alice sounded tired. Tired of her book, tired of Susie and Lindsey and Mr. Salmon and everyone else. If you’re going to read The Lovely Bones, read The Lovely Bones.
First of all, let me say this. I really wanted to love The Lovely Bones. But I didn’t. I didn’t like it very much.
This comes as a surprise to me, because while I was reading it, I found it almost impossible to put down. It was cryptic and mysterious. The problem is that at the end, it still felt cryptic and mysterious—like I’d missed something. I felt throughout the book that I’d find a plot line, or a key, or something, and it would all fit together perfectly. But it didn’t. The writing was hard to read, and I had to really focus to understand the words. The plot was very original and creative, but there just seemed to be something missing through the whole book. When I got to the end, I was very disappointed.
I didn’t feel engaged in The Lovely Bones. I felt like an outsider looking in. I related to the characters on a certain level—but then again I felt totally disconnected and withdrawn while reading.
I didn’t at all like what happened to Mr. Harvey. He needed to be caught and put in jail, or killed by the father, or something a little more than getting an icicle in his back and falling into a ravine. His death was very unsatisfactory.
I didn’t like the end at all. As I said earlier, it felt like something was missing. I got to the end and said “Hu? Did I miss something? Maybe I skipped some pages, or missed a paragraph…” and literally flipped back through the past few pages. Nothing. It was like the end of a chapter, not the end of a book. There are unanswered questions sitting right in front of you, and there are blank endings for some of the characters. By blank I mean empty, like it’s not an ending at all. Like there is another few chapters to read and then maybe it will all make sense.
As I said above, find it very difficult to stop until I got about halfway through. When I got to the halfway point, it started to feel like it wasn’t going anywhere and I put it off for about a month. The book felt like it was boring, and dead like Susie. The mystery wasn’t going to be solved. It got old. Blech.
But some of it was very fast paced and exciting, and the characters are very well developed. The dialogue flows freely and comfortably.
Also, however painful Mrs. Salmon’s leaving was, and watching the family get torn apart, it was beautiful in the end when she came back. And I loved the interaction between the characters, and I loved the characters themselves. Lindsey and Samuel were wonderful, and her baby was wonderful, and the grandma was wonderful. Poor, sweet little Buckley who grows up too fast and too hard…
So I rest closer to the negative side than the positive side. This was a good (depending on your definition) book—I just wasn’t connected to it. There were some things that I liked about The Lovely Bones. However, most of it I didn’t like. If I’m not connected to a book, how can I read it? Will I read this one again? probably not. Will I read the sequel? Not unless I get it in the mail for review and I’m really really bored.
I wish I could say more good things about this book. I wanted to love it. My friends all loved it and my mom loved it. But it felt odd and foreign and uncomfortable to me, and the ending was awful. If you consider it an ending.
Audio Review: The audio-book was read by the author, who read incredibly slow and seemingly forced. Wouldn't an author take some joy in reading their book out loud, even if it was as depressing as this one? wouldn’t the author, of all people, read with a little more energy? Alice sounded tired. Tired of her book, tired of Susie and Lindsey and Mr. Salmon and everyone else. If you’re going to read The Lovely Bones, read The Lovely Bones.